492 So. 2d 319 - State v. Self’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2010
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5821 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5871 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Freed · United States v. Balint · Vasys v. Metropolitan District Commission · 455 So. 2d 72 - Ex Parte Murry
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although no culpable mental state is expressly designated in a statute defining an offense, an appropriate culpable mental state may nevertheless be required for the commission of that offense, or with respect to some or all of the material elements thereof, if the proscribed conduct necessarily involves such culpable mental state. A statute defining a crime, unless clearly indicating a legislative intent to impose strict liability, states a crime of mental culpability."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A person who either: “(1) Changes, alters, removes, or obliterates the name of the maker, model, manufacturer’s number or other mark or identification of any firearm, or “(2) Possesses, obtains, receives, sells, or uses a firearm after the maker, model, manufacturer’s number or other mark or identification has been changed, altered, removed, or obliterated, “is guilty of a Class C felony.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[W]e believe a criminal intent should be incorporated into § 13A-11-64 because the modern trend among other non-federal enactments on the subject is to require some type of mens rea .... [W]e believe the degree of culpability required for the commission of an offense under § 13A-11-64(1) should comport with the statutory purpose, i.e., that a person who “ ‘(1) willfully, changes, alters, removes, or obliterates the name of the maker, model, manufacturer’s number or other mark or identification of any firearm, with intent to conceal or misrepresent the identity of the firearm’ “is guilty of a Class C felony. “Similarly because the goal of § 13A-11-64(2) is to prohibit the criminal possession, etc., of a firearm whose identifying marks have been obliterated, and because this objective is equivalent to the purpose of the VIN falsification provisions of § 32-8-86, we believe the mental state required for criminal possession, etc., should reflect the statute’s goal, ie., that a person who “ ‘(2) possesses, obtains, receives, sells, or uses a firearm with knowledge that the maker, model, manufacturer’s number or other mark or identification has been changed, altered, removed or obliterated and with intent to conceal or misrepresent the identity of the firearm’ “is guilty of a Class C felony.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.